Effects of dabigatran according to age in atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the risk of stroke and bleeding vary according to age. To estimate effects of dabigatran, compared with warfarin, on stroke, bleeding and mortality in patients with AF in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy (RE-LY) trial according to age, we analysed treatment effects using age as a continuous variable and using age categories. METHODS: RE-LY included 10 855 (59.9%) patients aged <75 years, 4231 patients (23.4%) aged 75-79 years, 2305 (12.7%) aged 80-84 years and 722 (4.0%) aged ≥85 years at baseline. RESULTS: Benefits of dabigatran versus warfarin regarding stroke (HR range 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.86) to 0.70 (0.31 to 1.57) for dabigatran 150 mg twice daily), HR range 0.52 (0.21 to 1.29) to 1.08 (0.73 to 1.60) for dabigatran 110 mg twice daily) and intracranial bleeding were maintained across all age groups (interaction p values all not significant). There was a highly significant interaction (p value interaction <0.001) between age and treatment for extracranial major bleeding, with lower rates with both doses of dabigatran compared with warfarin in younger patients (HR 0.78 (0.62 to 0.97) for 150 mg twice daily, HR 0.72 (0.57 to 0.90) for 110 mg twice daily) but similar (HR 1.50 (1.03 to 2.18) for 110 mg twice daily) or higher rates (HR 1.68 (1.18 to 2.41) for 150 mg twice daily) in older patients (≥80 years). CONCLUSION: Effects of dabigatran compared with warfarin on stroke prevention and intracranial bleeding are consistent across all age groups. Effects of dabigatran on extracranial major bleeding are age dependent, supporting selection of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily for elderly patients (age ≥80 years). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registration number: https://clinicaltrials.gov NCT00262600.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".